U.S., Iraq working on security accord

WASHINGTON — The United States and Iraq are beginning to hammer out a security accord that will define their relationship for years to come, but it probably won't resemble the postwar agreements that have left thousands of American troops in places such as Japan, Germany, or South Korea.

The United States has to have some kind of agreement to have forces in Iraq because the 2002 U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing the presence of the U.S. military is set to expire at the end of the year. The agreement administration officials are working on with the Iraqi government probably would not affect the number of forces being drawn out of Iraq now. But it would set the stage for a long-term security strategy for the two countries.

The Bush administration and the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki already have agreed to a set of "principles for friendship and cooperation" that creates a foundation for a more formal agreement that would normalize relations between the two countries.

Administration and military officials told The New York Times last week that the Bush administration will insist that the Iraqi government give the United States broad authority to conduct combat operations and guarantee civilian contractors specific legal protections from Iraqi law.

The United States' negotiating position for a formal military-to-military relationship, one that would replace the current U.N. mandate, is laid out in a draft proposal that also includes demands that U.S. troops be immune from Iraqi prosecution, and that they maintain the power to detain Iraqi prisoners.

Democrats in Congress, including the party's two leading presidential contenders, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois, have accused the White House of sponsoring negotiations that will set into law a long-term security relationship with Iraq.

But administration officials said that the U.S. proposal specifically did not set future troop levels in Iraq or ask for permanent U.S. bases there. Including such long-term commitments in the agreement would turn the accord into a bilateral treaty, one that would require Senate approval.

The Bush administration faces the political reality that it cannot count on the two-thirds vote that would be required to approve a treaty with Iraq setting out such a military commitment.

Administration officials are describing their draft proposal in terms of a traditional status-of-forces agreement, an accord that historically has been negotiated by the executive branch and signed by the executive branch without a Senate vote.

"I think it's pretty clear that such an agreement would not talk about force levels," Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday. "We have no interest in permanent bases. I think the way to think about the framework agreement is an approach to normalizing the relationship between the United States and Iraq."

Officials said the negotiations with the Iraqis, expected to begin in February, also would determine whether the U.S. authority to conduct combat operations in the future would be unilateral, as it is now, or whether it would require consultation with the Iraqis or even Iraqi approval.

While the United States currently has status — of-forces agreements with more than 80 countries, including Japan, Germany, South Korea and a number of Iraq's neighbors, none of those countries is at war.

About 157,000 troops are in Iraq. The U.S. maintains about 32,000 troops in Japan, 27,000 in South Korea, more than 57,000 in Germany, and nearly 10,000 in Italy.